The right- wing has begun taking out their frustrations with immigration on undocumented children

undocumented childrenThe lashing-out against Undocumented Immigrants is getting rather ridiculous and distasteful. As any chance of Immigration Reform appears to be dead, those staunchly opposed to any positive reform to Immigration Laws are moving out in-force to vent their rage. Often, those receiving the brunt of this rage are undocumented children, who are not excluded from the haters of Immigration Reform.

There was an incident recently in Murrieta, California. Three buses operated by the Border Patrol were halted from entering their station. The point of contention was that the buses were carrying undocumented children and their families who were about to be processed. The protesters were of the typical right-wing, anti-immigrant variety.

What strikes me about this incident, is the fact that it’s tied to the rise in public outcry by conservatives towards immigrants. Understand the distinction. They are not attacking immigration reform, as in policy proposals. They are focusing their attacks on the immigrants themselves, often very crudely.

I realize that the right-wing often engages in personal attacks toward immigrants as a people, but more often then not, they try and present the facade that they are simply engaging in genuine disagreement with policy. Now that Immigration Reform seems to be dead, the right-wing is giving up on any notion of policy agreement and their true colors are emerging.

The attacks against immigrants are now focused specifically on undocumented children. Rather than attacking immigrant adults, it appears a special type of rage is being reserved for the kids, despite most of the children having no choice in their parents decision to send them to America.

The term “anchor baby” apparently can’t be used enough by conservatives these days either. Of course none of them take into account that most undocumented children were not born in the US in the first place. How exactly they could be counted as anchor babies is unsure. Of course, for the children that were born in the US, the call grows louder for the repeal of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

undocumented childrenFor those unfamiliar, the 14th Amendment in a post-Civil War amendment that was put in place to prevent states from denying citizenship to recently freed slaves. The Amendment confers automatic citizenship to children born on American soil. This Amendment of course did wonders for immigrant families as well, who benefited from their children being afforded citizenship at birth. Well, conservatives want to get rid of the Amendment.

Some have been talking about it for some time, but Laura Ingram recently proposed repealing the 14th Amendment along with rounding up undocumented immigrants by the thousands. Her ideas were so bad, that even Bill O’Reilly seemed to think it was bad politics. Ingram focused specifically on the kids, and believed that the “anchor babies” have to be kicked out just as harshly as their parents.

I understand the complexity of immigration policies. I realize that some countries put barbed wire and shock fences on their borders, and some nations have draconian immigration laws. Yet, as Americans, aren’t we supposed to represent something better than that? All those conservatives in America that consider themselves “real Americans” are all immigrants.

Every one of our ancestors (save for Native Americans) were immigrants from distant shores who clamored for whatever second chance they could get. How is opportunity a great thing for our relatives, but not for those who are coming here now? Last I recalled, we never showed birth-certificates and papers to Natives.

The nuances of this issue are important, and I am willing to hear many arguments. But, if there’s one thing that should be agreed on, its leaving the kids out of it. Unfortunately, the right-wing always keeps it classy…

8 COMMENTS

  1. If these poor people said they were going to vote republican, Obama would have our border looking like the Korean DMZ.

  2. Let’s protect our intellectual and public policy borders against the blatant misinformation spread by the GOP/Tea Party/Christian Right propaganda machine and by those on the right who are either (1) too lazy to do their own homework and thus willing to buy—lock, stock and barrel—what the ideologues tell them as if it was true or (2) are simply looking for any argument (whether it is factual or not doesn’t matter) that gives cover to their nativism/racism.

    Protecting our intellectual and public policy borders against hard-core ideologues seeking to manipulate the reflexive, visceral responses of the American Right is, in our time, more important even than protecting our geographical borders.

    (1) Your “parsing” of the difference between “immigrant” and “illegal immigrant” is ultimately irrelevant. The American Right doesn’t like immigrants in general—be they “legal” or “illegal.” The racist rants of Republicans like Steve King, whose comment that Latino immigrants “have calves like cantaloupes” because they are, of course, all drug smugglers is a perfect example. If Republicans didn’t have a problem with “legal” immigrants, their politicians would have been willing to take on major immigration reform. They didn’t take it on because any mention of it brings out the Republican primary cannibals. Face it, you support a political party whose latent—and, not-so-latent—racism becomes more obvious every day.

    (2) You should stay away from Breitbart and the other right-wing site still trying to pass the nonsense that advertising for these “chaperones” pre-dated the present crisis—no credible website has anything to say about it because they know that you’re meme is false. The “chaperones” about which you speak are part of a “sponsor” program that was originally passed by a Democratic Congress—at the urging of President Bush—and signed into law by President Bush. Furthermore, the effort to find more sponsors in January was initiated not just in anticipation of this influx of immigrant children but in response to an influx that actually began last October. In other words, this influx began almost four months before the attempt to find more sponsors was made.

    (3) Your comment about “callous parents” indicates your abysmal presumptuousness and abject ignorance about the situation in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Why don’t you study the context down there before you make absurd, denigrating statements? As dangerous as is the journey up the east coast of Central America and Mexico, it is far less dangerous than what these kids faced at home. And, (1) many were accompanied by their mothers, (2) just as many were accompanied by older siblings—in other words, the majority, as Homeland Security reported over the weekend, were not subject to the “coyote caravan.”

    (4) Where are your facts about “disease?” Oh, you don’t have any. Why don’t you have any? Because there aren’t any? The absurdity of your statement is beyond belief. We face far more potential public health problems from American middle-class parents not vaccinating their kids than from immigrant children. Your statement about “diseases” being brought by these children is as cold and without soul as the rest of the GOP’s immigration “policies.”

    (5) Your attempt to conflate the issue of a Cuban child being returned to his father with this present crisis is a total non-starter. It is a false equivalency. I wouldn’t try that out on anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex.

    (6) Again, if Republicans were pro-immigration—which they aren’t—they would have pressed their congressional representatives to do something per immigration reform. Again, their representatives didn’t do anything because they were afraid of their anti-immigrant base and its latent/not-so-latent racism. You perhaps want to remember that your last presidential candidate hilariously had an immigration policy defined by the unforgettable phrase “self-deportation.” Were I a member of such a party, I’d still be hiding from shame.

    (7) No one has said these children aren’t going back to their parents. However, their cases, under immigration law passed during the Bush administration, must be adjudicated. And I’m sure many will find sponsors and remain.

    And, by the way, lose the meme about Republicans being against immigration reform because “we don’t trust the president.” The bipartisan Senate Immigration Reform bill would not take affect until after President Obama left office. Hence, House Republicans could pass it whether they “trusted” the president or not. They won’t even let it come to the floor for debate because, well, their party is so fractured about any major issue that they can’t pass any kind of major legislation.

    DID YOU GET THAT? The Senate Immigration Reform bill would not take affect until after the president leaves office. Your “trust” argument is an outlier. It is irrelevant. Moot.

    Get your facts right. Better, get some facts.

    • Immigration is a legal process which these people have rejected. This is migration, not immigration. If you migrate illegally into a sovereign state, you are an illegal alien. If you have permanent residence, you are a resident alien. Conservatives are not uninformed; far from it. The House of Representatives is the voice of the people. They are to follow the will of their constituents. If they don’t, they can be replaced in a short time (hence the two year terms). We saw this in 2010, when the House returned to Republican control.

      Your message resonates with poorly educated people, who cannot even form a relevant argument. This includes Americans and foreign nationals. You have to use the race card because the rule of law is unacceptable to foreigners who have come from corrupt nations. It is clear that progressives are willing to break any law that obstructs their attempts to impose a crony capitalist (socialist) regime on freedom loving people. It is understandable why foreigners from lawless nations would be attracted to Democrats/progressives. They also will ignore the laws that obstruct their aims, no matter who is harmed. The most vulnerable AMERICANS are harmed by this mass of humanity that Obama and his progressives are imposing upon this country. There are AMERICAN children that live in violent, gang infested neighborhoods, yet you and your ilk would bring in more poverty, disease, and violence from foreign lands, at a time when over 90 million Americans and legal residents are not participating in the workforce due to a lack of job opportunities. A better policy is to help these nations institute reforms which will make life more tenable for their citizens.

      I won’t even bother to address the rest of your specious accusations. Same old race baiting and lies.

  3. So why can’t these children be immediately be sent back?
    Oh right. A Republican Congress passed a law, and it was signed by George W. Bush saying that they have to be processed in order to determine if they have a legitimate reason for wanting to immigrate.
    Gee. That’s an inconvenient truth, isn’t it?

Leave a Comment